Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging on glass packaging producers.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. In the UK, the glass manufacturing sector supports more than 120,000 jobs, adding £2.2 billion to the economy each year. I am immensely proud to have Beatson Clark in my constituency, which has been manufacturing glass in Rotherham for more than 270 years. It is a key local employer, and the only remaining independent UK-owned glass container manufacturer. It is also the only company in the UK that still produces amber pharmaceutical glass. After adding in the supply chain, more than 2,000 people are dependent on Beatson Clark for their livelihood.

As we move to a fully circular economy, glass is the perfect packaging material. It is infinitely recyclable, does not lose quality over time and does not release harmful microplastics into products, including the human body or the environment at large. It is easily and widely recyclable, with no degradation as part of the recycling process. Bottle banks were first introduced in the UK in the 1970s. Glass that was collected then is most likely still in circulation today.

Glass manufacture is energy-intensive, but with electric and hybrid furnaces and readily available technology there is no reason why glass cannot be a net zero product in the not too distant future, especially with Government support with infrastructure and electricity costs, as per the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. Yet, because of the Government’s dogged decision to press ahead with extended producer responsibility, initiated by the previous Administration, we instead face the decimation of our domestic glass industry.

Job losses and the closure of sites are literally just around the corner. That is not the industry overreacting. British Glass has already received warnings from more than one beer and cider manufacturer that there is no future for glass in this country due to the EPR policy. EPR follows hot on the heels of a challenging few years for UK glass manufacturing. The energy crisis, increased costs and a reduction in trade tariffs from 6% to 0% since leaving the EU have made cheaper imported glass so much more attractive.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Holden’s Bottling company in my constituency has written to me with concerns about EPR, saying it makes the company simply uncompetitive. Does my hon. Friend agree that if EPR fees were calculated on volume not weight, it would incentivise using more sustainable materials such as glass over plastic?

[Sarah Champion]

I support my hon. Friend 100%. It is crazy that we are not doing that by volume, because glass is heavier. We are forcing people to move to lighter products, particularly plastic.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend also accept that because glass is heavier than other products, it costs more to recycle and transport? It may break during transport, so it is not the case that it is a more sustainable product.

[Sarah Champion]

I have not heard that or seen any evidence of that. All I can say is that in Wales, 95% of the glass is kerbside-collected and recycled. I do not know where my hon. Friend’s stats come from. If she would like to share them with me and the industry, I would like to have a look.

Glass produced in Turkey is not currently covered by emissions trading, so the CO₂ emitted is not captured by matching penalties. In addition, Turkish glass manufacturers have built factories in organised industrial zones and benefit from Government support in the form of lower water, natural gas or telecommunications costs, as well as a lower taxation scheme.

The lower cost base, supported by the Turkish Government in the form of state aid, is assisting Turkey in targeting export prices at rates that are lower than UK factory costs. However, it is the baseline fees set for glass under the extended producer responsibility that are set to be the hammer-blow. And the hammer administering that blow is being wielded by a Labour Government, which I find hugely disappointing.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I want to put on the record my pride in having a glassworks in Irvine in my constituency and in its many workers, including Mr Thomson, who lived next door to me in Auchenharvie Place when I was growing up. The Government must consider the concerns of the sector about the EPR and look at the evidence that has been supplied. And I urge the Minister to adopt the sensible solutions that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) is suggesting today.

[Sarah Champion]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

The glass sector has always supported the principle behind EPR. It lobbied, on sound environmental and safety grounds, against inclusion in the deposit return scheme, knowing and accepting that that would mean the inclusion of all glass products in EPR. Yet the terms of EPR have seemingly been deliberately stacked against the sector.

It is not only glass manufacturers who will be hit hard by this change. Indeed, since being granted this debate I have been inundated with messages from organisations worried about the impact of EPR.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to ensure that the implementation of EPR avoids unintended consequences for businesses such as pubs, which are already facing huge headwinds? In many cases, pubs already manage their packaging waste through commercial contracts, so they would face double the levy.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend makes a sound point, which I will reinforce.

Let me go through some—I emphasise “some”—of the organisations that have been in touch with me about this issue. They include Vinarchy, one of the world’s largest wine companies; the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates; the Campaign for Real Ale, CAMRA; the British Beer and Pub Association; the Wine and Spirit Trade Association; UKHospitality; the Foodservice Packaging Association; the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association; the Scotch Whisky Association; the Irish Whiskey Association; the English Whisky Guild; the Brewing, Food and Beverage Industry Suppliers’ Association; the National Association of Cider Makers; and WineGB. All these organisations have spoken out against EPR and their criticisms of the approach being taken by the Government have been surprisingly—indeed, strikingly—similar. Minister, they cannot all be wrong.

Other assessments of EPR plans have been similarly damning. The Office for Budget Responsibility has concluded that EPR is a tax. It will not improve recycling rates and it will damage businesses. The Bank of England and the British Retail Consortium have recently stated that the impact of this policy on businesses will be similar to that of the increased national insurance costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said, all this is coming at a time of rising economic uncertainty, which is the result of the Trump tariffs. Pubs face an estimated £8 million hike in their costs, which will equate to an extra £2,000 per year for a large pub.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Like her, I have heard from the British Beer and Pub Association, and I have also heard from several of the pubs in my constituency of West Dorset. The British Beer and Pub Association has said that the increase per bottle on beer and cider will be between 5p and 7p. That comes on the back of increases in business rates—one of my local pubs, The George in West Bay, saw their business rates rise from £8,000 a year to £27,000 a year, with increased national insurance contributions on top. If we want to keep village pubs, we need to support them and not keep taxing them.

[Sarah Champion]

I agree 100%. These consequences —one hopes that they are unintended consequences—are the stark evidence that has been put to the Minister, but seemingly it is not making any difference.

I go back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay made. EPR is intended to apply to household waste only. As pubs and similar businesses already pay for their packaging waste collection via commercial contracts, they are being charged double.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is pointing out the double counting and the effect of EPR. I have 19 pubs and Fuller’s brewery in my constituency, and they employ about 4,000 people. With all the other pressures on pubs and the hospitality industry at the moment, this is a bridge too far. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to reconsider this?

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend: the Government need to pause, and I will go on to argue why they need to do that.

One of the problems is that packaging producers are unable to exclude these products from their EPR liability. There is no way out for pubs and hospitality businesses other than to pay. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association has said:

“Defra’s new rules do not work, and the vast majority of bottles sold in hospitality will pay EPR fees, completely unfairly. Defra are aware of their mistake but have admitted the issue would not be prioritised.”

Why? For brewers, the cost of glass beer bottle packaging is estimated to be more than £150 million per year. These additional costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumers. The Government themselves estimate that 85% of EPR costs will fall on the end user. With the public already facing stubbornly high costs of living and inflationary pressure, I cannot comprehend why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is proceeding with a policy that its own analysis suggests may not meaningfully improve recycling rates. I urge the Minister to change course and step away from this madness.

Let us look in detail at this flawed scheme. The exact methodology for calculating EPR has still not been fully shared, even though it came into effect last month. The process to date has been far from transparent. Based on current illustrative fees, glass is liable for around 30% of EPR costs, while only representing around 5% of in-scope material by volume. That is because fees are calculated by weight, not volume. Glass, as a relatively heavy material, suffers unfairly because of that, yet volume is the limiting factor when collecting and processing waste, not weight.

British Glass has raised several areas that it believes are incorrect in the methodology for calculating the base fees, but it has received no certainty from DEFRA that these will be reflected in the final fees. I am aware that other packaging trade associations have serious concerns about the methodology used to create the base fees. The fee for glass currently stands at £240 per tonne, which equates to around 10p per glass bottle—significantly higher than under similar schemes in Europe.

Germany is often cited, including by DEFRA, as having a good example of a successful EPR scheme. In Germany, the fee stands at £24, or €28, per tonne of glass. I appreciate that collection methods are different in Europe so the comparison is not exact, but are we seriously expected to believe it costs 10 times as much to collect and process glass in the UK as it does in Germany?

The policy makes even less sense when we consider that brands and retailers do not buy packaging by weight, but by unit. That is why it is essential to have an EPR fee that takes into account unit numbers. Recyclable glass can be 20 times heavier than less recyclable packaging, resulting in vastly disproportionate EPR fees on glass.

When I raised these issues previously, the Minister acknowledged that the per-unit impact on glass is higher than for other materials, yet the Government have failed to address that, calling into question their repeated claim that the policy is material-neutral. That is simply not true. Glass is being penalised. The implementation of EPR leaves glass at the mercy of its competitors. Glass beverage containers have been subject to EPR fees since the start of April 2025. Competing materials such as aluminium and plastic will face no policy fees until the introduction of the DRS in, at the earliest, October 2027.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sarah Champion]

Not at the moment.

In the meantime, our Government are driving packaging customers decisively and permanently away from glass. If, for example, a brand sells 1 million half-litre bottles, the EPR fees for glass would be £72,000. If, on the other hand, the brand decides to put its product into plastic or aluminium, it will pay no EPR fees whatsoever. Officials and Ministers have argued that materials that are part of a deposit return scheme will be subject to set-up costs, and it is on those grounds that they are granted exemption from EPR fees for close to two and a half years. Yet those set-up costs are still unknown publicly and therefore cannot be, and have not been, considered by brands and retailers when making their packaging choices. The truth is that brands and retailers can avoid the imminent threat of additional costs from EPR by switching away from glass packaging to not pay EPR fees on their beverage products. Once those producers have decided to switch packaging materials, they must invest in new filling technology, and that makes it highly unlikely that they will ever switch back to glass.

This is not a hypothetical problem. The glass industry is already seeing evidence of material-switching to less recyclable packaging. I know that DEFRA has been sent a great deal of evidence of material-switching but, let us be honest, this policy choice does not seem based on evidence but on some unfathomable ideology.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Sarah Champion]

I am sorry, no.

In public, and in response to correspondence, DEFRA stated that there is no, or not enough, evidence of material-switching. That is simply not true. The industry, our businesses, and the sectors affected have supplied that evidence. It makes me wonder whether there is any threshold of evidence that would result in a rethink of the scheme.

DEFRA has highlighted the modulation of future EPR fees to address those expansive concerns, but let us be honest, even at the earliest point that such modulation would be introduced, huge and likely terminal damage will already have been done to glass manufacturers. It is not clear under the current guidelines whether glass will receive a reduction in fees, and it could even receive a fee increase in the future. Fees are currently charged retrospectively so, given the lack of confirmed information on the level of fees that glass will face, the costs are essentially unrecoverable. How can businesses be expected to operate under this profound uncertainty about their current and future costs?

For DEFRA, “reuse” often represents a magic bullet that will address all concerns, if only the industry would get onboard. The glass sector is keen to be part of the development of reuse and glass is the perfect material for it, but we must accept that large-scale national reuse systems are at least a decade away because there is currently no reuse infrastructure. Furthermore, not all products are suitable for reuse. Glass manufacturers can already supply reusable bottles, but a reuse scheme is much more than that. It would require significant buy-in across the whole supply chain.

The Minister also needs to recognise that not all glass bottles are for drinks. Beatson Clark, in my constituency, manufactures medicine bottles. Reuse is a laudable goal and one that the glass industry is keen to collaborate with the Government to achieve, but it is being repeatedly deployed as grounds to ignore the industry’s concerns about EPR. Reuse and EPR are two separate issues, and the conflation seems a deliberate muddying of the debate. The short-term impact of EPR could destroy the UK glass industry long before plans for reuse are even on the drawing board.

DEFRA has stated that the recycling reforms will add at least 21,000 new jobs and £10 billion to the UK economy, and stimulate the growth on which the Government are rightly focused. Yet it is unclear how those new jobs will be created. They are unlikely to be the kind of wealth-generating jobs that we currently have in the glass sector—jobs that are based in our manufacturing heartland, which really needs that work. Even if the Minister’s prediction were true, why risk existing jobs? Why not take the time to get EPR right and have both?

This is not scaremongering. The glass packaging industry is being driven into a crisis directly of the Government’s own making. UK glass manufacturers are already reporting that demand is down by 20%—although the EPR policy has been in place for only a month—and that low-cost imports have increased to help to absorb EPR costs.

On paper, I get that the Government are ostensibly seeking to encourage recycling, while recovering the cost to the public purse of its delivery. That is the right objective, but their approach will achieve the exact opposite. It will encourage switching to less recyclable materials; add costs to businesses such as pubs and breweries already struggling under inflationary and other cost pressures; and increase prices for consumers. If the concerns of industry are not addressed today, the Government also risk destroying our domestic capacity, leaving us reliant on highly polluting foreign imports.

I have raised these issues with the Minister time and again, as have other hon. Members, British Glass and individual businesses. I cannot therefore understand the reticence to engage with these very real problems. The origins of EPR lie with the previous Administration, but by continuing this flawed and ultimately self-defeating approach, a Labour Government risk destroying a great British industry. Does the Minister really want to be responsible for killing off our most recyclable packaging producer?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We have approximately 39 minutes before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, and eight Members who wish to speak, so I will impose a five-minute limit on speeches. Could hon. Members speak to the time, or slightly less? If there are interventions, I will have to reduce that limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate.

In the 10 months since I was elected MP for Ealing Southall, one issue has been raised with me more than any other: litter and fly-tipping. That is why I have made it my business as an MP to campaign on the issue, and that is why I welcome the extended producer responsibility regulations. They sound complicated, but they mean that the businesses that make the packaging that ends up on our streets and in our parks need to pay for that packaging to be recycled or disposed of. It is the polluter pays principle, and it makes complete sense to my constituents in Ealing Southall.

Up to now, local councils have had to pay the full cost of getting rid of that rubbish, and that means it is actually local council tax payers who foot the bill. That is not fair, and I know that my constituents will welcome the businesses that produce the packaging finally being forced to pay for it. When they buy a SIM card on the internet, they wonder why it comes with so much plastic and paper packaging. The new system means that businesses will face extra costs for that, which will give them a reason to reduce packaging, taking rubbish out of the system in the first place. For my constituents, that will mean less cardboard and plastic strewn on our streets.

The new system will also mean that Ealing council will now get an extra £4.7 million this year from the levy. It sounds like a lot of money, but in fact it costs £30 million every year to collect and get rid of all our rubbish. It is only right that the people who produce the rubbish should have to pay at least some of that massive cost.

[Sarah Champion]

Will my hon. Friend please assure her constituents that the whole sector supports EPR, but that, because of the two-year lag, there will be more plastic on her streets, not less?

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am afraid that the glass industry is perpetuating some of these untruths, and it just needs to get on board with the policy—it constantly wants to delay, but we need to make EPR happen now.

The glass industry says that it does not support the policy and that glass is more recyclable than other products. Let it tell that to my constituents, who see glass bottles in black sack fly-tips in parks, or dropped in little piles on streets where people have been street drinking, every day. In fact, just 43% of glass is recycled back into bottles. The glass industry also says that glass is being treated unfairly compared with plastic and cans, but plastic and cans will be included in the deposit return scheme, as we have already heard. Glass had the opportunity to be part of the scheme and the industry lobbied hard not be included. I congratulate it—it did a good job—but it cannot get off scot-free. It is either part of the reverse vending machine plan or part of the “polluter pays” system that we are talking about today. It has to be in one or the other—it creates litter and it must pay for the cost of clearing it up. Council tax payers cannot be left to continue picking up the tab.

The glass industry also says that it is being charged more than it should be, because the fees are based on weight. As I have said, weight is important: the heavier a product is, the more it costs to transport for recycling. It is also breakable, which increases the cost further, and glass costs a lot more to recycle, both in money and in carbon, as the heat has to be so high. Recycled glass bottles use 75% of the energy needed to make new bottles, compared with just 15% for reuse. The charges in the plan are based on the estimated costs to councils of recycling glass, and the industry needs to understand that. Glass really does need to come up with a sustainable plan for reuse, rather than arguing against the tide of the “polluter pays” principle.

I know the published fees are still in draft so that the Minister and her Department can ensure they are fair and based on actual costs. I have a lot of sympathy for the pub and restaurant businesses that might be affected, but the Department is looking in detail at some of the points raised, so I am sure a sensible solution will be found. It is important to emphasise that clean streets are vital for pubs and restaurants—they will not make money if no one wants to go to their mucky town centre.

The final argument from the industry is that it does not think the fees it pays will be spent on waste and recycling. I have heard that a lot, but already my local council in Ealing is making plans to spend some of the money on cracking down on fly-tipping. It will use CCTV by Southall common and treat fly-tipping as an environmental crime with police tape and a cordon, based on work by Keep Britain Tidy. Ealing council also has plans to open a new reuse centre in Acton.

There are calls from the glass industry, as we have heard, to delay the “polluter pays” levy, but I strongly urge the Minister to resist those calls. The previous Government delayed taking action, which led to rubbish on our streets increasing by more than one third on their watch. People in Ealing Southall want cleaner streets. They are sick to death of bottles, cans, cardboard, mattresses, sofas and all the rest of it blighting their community. The Government have already shown they are deadly serious about making local areas feel loved again. Let us get on with sorting out the mess and bring in the new law to clean up our streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Stringer. I did not do that last week, so the Clerks have clearly made a mark against my name. I will do my best, and I have my team on standby to yank me down, as I am sure you will do. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for asking for this debate. She has been a doughty supporter of Beatson Clark in her constituency and of the glass industry in general. I also thank hon. Members from across the parties who have made valuable points today.

The aim of the reforms is to create a more circular and resource-efficient economy. They are the biggest reforms in a generation. The three elements—simpler recycling, DRS and extended producer responsibility for packaging—will turn the dial on recycling rates, which, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, have stagnated over the past 15 years and are bumping along at 42% to 44%. Assessments show that getting our household recycling rate up to 65% over the next 10 years will drive £10 billion of new investment in the British economy and create 21,000 new jobs.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will make some progress and then give way.

UK circular industries—those that keep products and materials in circulation for as long as possible—currently deliver £67 billion a year to the economy, up from £44 billion in 2008, and provide 827,000 jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about the innovators in her constituency creating new packaging. I will take away the point about weights and measures and see what we can do in a cross-ministerial way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will give time at the end but I want to make some progress.

The annual growth rate of circular industries is 3%, more than double the UK’s overall growth rate of 1.2%. Extended producer responsibility for packaging—pEPR—moves recycling costs from taxpayers to packaging producers. Think about it: not everybody drinks and not everybody shops online, but we are all paying for the costs of collection. We have had a great tour of drinking places, hostelries and amazing producers, but at the moment everybody in the country is paying for that, through council tax and general taxation. These reforms are creating systematic change, and that is hard.

Simpler recycling in England will make recycling easier and consistent. People will be able to recycle the same materials, including glass, whether they are at home, work or school, which will create a step change in the quality and quantity of recyclate streams. That is enabled by pEPR, which will pay for the new costs associated with the change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned.

We are also introducing deposit return schemes in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland that add refundable deposits to single-use plastic, steel and aluminium containers. I discussed this with my colleague in Northern Ireland last week at the British-Irish Council environment ministerial meeting at Kew Gardens. We had a two-hour debate about how we would co-operate on the circular economy, in particular looking at the challenges of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man—island economies with no real reprocessing facilities—and what we can all learn from each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I decided not to intervene on the Minister because we have had this argument a lot and she still does not seem to be hearing a whole room of MPs bringing examples to her. She talked about all producers paying their fair share. I agree, and the glass sector agrees, but that is not happening because only glass is paying. The freeloaders the Minister talks about are currently plastic and aluminium. I am really supportive of all the other examples of packaging—absolutely, let us have all of them—but at the moment the Minister has a stark choice. She mentions the jobs that will be created; she does not mention those that will be lost. It is those jobs, and the likelihood of our losing the glass industry, that I urge her to focus on. She should pause the scheme, listen to and act on the concerns, and bring the whole scheme into force in October 2027, when the other two key materials will be in place. That is the only fair, just and, dare I say it, Labour way of doing this. At the moment the good guys are being punished, and people in our constituencies are going to lose their jobs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging on glass packaging producers.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy.

Clause 1 creates a regulation-making power that will allow the Government to introduce measures through secondary legislation to tackle low-welfare movements of dogs, cats and ferrets into the United Kingdom from third countries. Importantly, the clause gives the Government the ability to introduce regulations to respond dynamically to pet smuggling practices as they evolve in the future. We know that illicit traders are quick to react to legislative changes and find ways to circumvent new restrictions, so the ability to impose restrictions to protect animal welfare both now and in the future will be important and will ensure that we can tackle illegal activity and pet smuggling quickly and effectively.

Subsection (1) empowers an appropriate national authority to make regulations about the bringing into the UK of dogs, cats or ferrets for the purpose of promoting their welfare. Subsection (2) makes it clear that that includes the ability to prohibit or restrict such imports according to specified criteria. An appropriate national authority is defined in clause 3 as the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland. Clause 1(2) provides an indicative list of matters that regulations made under subsection (1) may cover. Those include exemptions to prohibitions or restrictions, issuing permits and enforcement mechanisms.

Many Members have asked me about this next point. Ferrets are included in the scope of this regulation-making power to align with the scope of the non-commercial pet travel rules, which apply equally to dogs, cats and ferrets. Our pet travel rules apply to dogs, cats and ferrets because they are species that are susceptible to rabies and commonly kept as pets.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for inviting me to be on the Committee, for introducing the Bill and for mentioning ferrets. It is very important. In discussing the last iteration of this legislation, I put on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar, and I would like to repeat that.

[Dr Chambers]

I am delighted to hear that Oscar is still with us.

[Sarah Champion]

No, he isn’t!

[Dr Chambers]

He is not—my condolences to the hon. Lady’s brother on the loss of Oscar, his much-loved ferret.

Crucially, subsections (3) and (4) state that the first regulations made under the regulation-making power in subsection (1) in relation to England, Scotland and Wales must include prohibitions on the three specific types of low-welfare imports. Governments in Great Britain must first use the power to raise the minimum age at which a dog or cat can be brought into Great Britain to six months, to prohibit the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats that are heavily pregnant and to ban the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations, such as cropped ears.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Clause 3 outlines who can exercise the regulation-making powers in clause 1. For the purposes of those powers, clause 3(1) defines the “appropriate national authority” in respect of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That subsection confirms that the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland will have the power to make regulations for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.

Animal welfare is a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales, including in relation to the movement of animals into Scotland or Wales for the purposes of protecting animal welfare. In Northern Ireland, animal welfare is generally a transferred matter, but the subject matter of the Bill means that the reserved matter in paragraph 20 of schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is engaged. Therefore clause 3(2) sets out that the consent of the Secretary of State may be necessary when DAERA proposes to make regulations under the powers in clause 1. To provide for effective collaboration, clause 3(3) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that extend and apply to Northern Ireland where DAERA gives its consent. Subsection (4) sets out that DAERA’s consent would not be needed in such circumstances as described by subsection (2).

[Sarah Champion]

I think this is the first time I have served under your guidance, Sir Jeremy; it is a pleasure to do so. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for using his private Member’s Bill to shepherd this vital legislation through the House and for inviting me to be part of the Committee. The Bill is deeply welcomed. I have campaigned on animal smuggling for a decade, and those hon. Members around me have been campaigning on it for just as long. It generous of him to let us see the Bill through what is hopefully the final phase.

My constituents often write to me expressing their concern about this vile, exploitative practice and urging legislators to take meaningful action. They are frustrated by how many animals experience unnecessary suffering, which so often could be stopped with a stroke of a pen in this place. But let me be clear: these measures should have been acted on years ago. I urge the Committee to use this momentum to push for the strongest protections possible and support the Bill.

The puppy smuggling trade is worth billions in the UK. The Naturewatch Foundation found that an estimated 80% of dogs and puppies in the UK still come from unknown sources, including unlicensed breeders, illegal puppy farms and puppy smuggling operations. There are huge welfare concerns for puppies being transported long distances at such a young age having been taken from their mothers too soon, which hampers their development and often leads to illnesses and lifelong conditions. There is a human risk, too, with imported dogs leading to serious biosecurity concerns. I did not know, but in 2022 we had the first case of Brucella canis transferring from an imported dog to an owner. It is no wonder that the public overwhelmingly support the Bill’s actions, with 83% backing stronger rules to stop puppy smuggling.

Cats face similar mistreatment. Cats Protection’s 2023 report highlighted that an estimated 50,000 cats acquired in the 12 months preceding the survey came from an overseas source. It is unclear whether they received health and welfare checks or what conditions they were subjected to during travel. Without proper regulation, cats likely arrived in the UK in an extremely poor state of health, carrying infectious diseases that they would inevitably pass on to other cats.

I therefore strongly support clause 1(3) and (4), which increase the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens from 15 weeks to six months. They also introduce new measures to prevent the import of mutilated animals. For years, puppies and kittens have been imported into the UK, completely legally, with painful mutilations, including docked tails, cropped ears or having been declawed or debarked. Continued importation normalises these practices and makes it near impossible to enforce a ban in the UK.

The abhorrent declawing procedure, is, I am sorry to say, the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip to the first knuckle. The 2024 PDSA “Animal Wellbeing” report stated, alarmingly:

“4% of cat owners who acquired their pet from abroad told us they did so because they wanted them to be declawed”.

That equates to 15,000 cats whose owners want them to be mutilated. To end such an appalling practice once and for all, I urge the Committee to maintain the strength of the Bill’s core provisions. In so doing, we will answer the public’s long-standing call for reform, protect our beloved dogs, cats and ferrets from ill treatment, and entrench the UK’s leadership on animal welfare.

Finally, if you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy, while I appreciate that the Bill looks at a very specific area of animal imports, I want to take the opportunity to reflect the strong feelings of the animal welfare and conservation sector about the decline in cross-border movements of zoo animals between the UK and the EU. Those movements are often part of essential conservation breeding programmes, and I share the hopes of the sector that, as the Government address dog, cat and ferret imports, they will soon address cross-border animal movements for zoos and aquariums.

I fully support the Bill. I wish it well with its progress, and I hope that it has the Committee’s support.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak briefly in support of this important Bill, which addresses some long-standing and deeply concerning issues around the welfare of animals brought into the UK.

As someone who has run a veterinary business and is married to a vet, I have seen at first hand, and heard about from colleagues over the years, the serious impact on animal health and welfare—and, indeed, the risks to human health—of puppy smuggling. Sadly, we have seen too many cases in which puppies and cats arrive in the UK from countries with lower welfare standards, often in very poor condition. Many suffer from diseases and parasites, and some have been bred irresponsibly, resulting in painful and lifelong conditions—orthopaedic problems, breathing difficulties and eye defects, to name just a few.

It is not just animals that are at risk. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, diseases such as Brucella canis, which is endemic in countries such as Romania and Ukraine, pose a real threat to humans—especially those caring for the dogs, including veterinary surgeons and nurses. In the most serious cases, the infection can cause miscarriage. While responsible breeders may carry out appropriate testing, those involved in illegal smuggling often do not. That makes the Bill not only a matter of animal welfare, but one of public health.

Irresponsible and illegal breeders have exploited loopholes in existing legislation to treat animals with complete disregard and reduce them to mere commodities. It is absolutely right that we seek to close those gaps through the Bill. I therefore welcome the provisions in clause 1(3) and (4) to prohibit the importation of dogs and cats under six months of age. That is particularly important in the case of very young puppies, whose age can be difficulty to verify. As a result, they may be taken from their mothers too soon and imported at far too young an age, before receiving essential vaccinations, such as for rabies, putting both animals and humans at risk.

I also welcome the vital prohibition on importing heavily pregnant dogs and cats—those more than 42 days pregnant. The stress of a long journey can impact the health of both the mother and her unborn young. Heavily pregnant animals require more frequent toilet breaks and are at higher risk of overheating, and the physical stress can compromise their respiratory health.

I fully welcome the prohibition on importing animals that have been subject to mutilations such as cropped ears, docked tails or declawing, which are harmful and unnecessary practices. We should not allow our high UK welfare standards to be undermined by those who seek to profit through cruelty. This is no way to treat animals.

As a country that is rightly proud of our standards in animal welfare and biosecurity, we must continue to lead by example, so the Bill is both necessary and welcome. I also acknowledge the important work of charities including the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, which have consistently championed these issues and called for stronger protections.

Global Deforestation

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner)—in this case, he is a friend—on raising a matter of paramount importance that will affect the future of our children and grandchildren. I am fortunate enough to have five of the latter. I decided to participate in this debate having yesterday received a work of fiction, in the form of a briefing note from the Drax organisation. I also had the good fortune yesterday to meet two charming ladies, Dr Krystal Martin and Katherine Egland, both from the United State of Mississippi, where Drax has an operation that is hugely impacting their lives and their communities.

I am a simple man and I find long equations hard to follow, but it strikes me that if someone fells carbon-sequestering trees, using power to do so, and if they turn the wood into pellets, using power, transport those pellets across the United States, by either water or land, and then transport those pellets across the Atlantic in diesel-powered boats, the chances are that they are using quite a lot of carbon. It strikes me that Drax’s claim that its operation is somehow carbon-friendly has to be a myth.

One of my wiser colleagues reminded me that, for Drax, the clock starts ticking when the pellets arrive at the power station gates, and everything that goes before is written off. This is an absolute nonsense. It was subsidised by the British taxpayer to a considerable extent under the previous Government. To give credit where it is due, the current Government have secured a rather better deal than the previous one. Nevertheless, these practices are still being subsidised to a ridiculous extent.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

First, I would like to correct the record, because the right hon. Gentleman is anything but simple. He has always been a leading light in every debate he contributes to. In my constituency we reclaim wood that would have otherwise gone into landfill and turn it into pellets, but unfortunately the Government subsidy for that is about to end, making the situation the right hon. Gentleman describes ever more perverse.

[Sir Roger Gale]

The hon. Lady makes an unassailable point.

This should not be happening. Drax is felling trees in the southern states of the United States—in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana—and throughout Canada on an unimaginable scale. The people at Drax claim that they are using pulp wood from

“thinnings that help to open up the forest canopy and get light onto the forest floor”.

Oh no they are not! They are engaged in scorched-earth forestry. They are felling acres and acres of woodland in the southern United States and Canada, and that is not acceptable. And it is being subsidised by the British Government. Worse still, the health of the local populations in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi is being directly and adversely affected by Drax’s practices.

Drax has lied—there is no other word for it—to secure its contracts and licences. I shall do my damnedest to ensure that the renewal of those licences is contested in every way. I urge the Minister to go back to her Government, particularly the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, to expose the myth that is Drax, and to insist that we must find viable alternatives—not tomorrow, but now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Vickers, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this debate. It is very poignant to have it on the day that the Climate Change Committee is saying that we will not reach our climate targets.

I will focus on building on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd). It is an important issue and one on which the United Kingdom can demonstrate real leadership: tackling illegal deforestation linked to the UK supply chain.

In the Environment Act 2021, Parliament rightly included a requirement for due diligence provisions to prevent larger businesses from using forest-risk commodities that contribute to illegal deforestation. Those regulations are crucial to our meeting our commitments to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. Yet today, more than 1,100 days have passed since the consultation on implementation closed, and the due diligence regulations remain unpublished and unimplemented. Every hour that passes, an area of rainforest equivalent in size to 300 football pitches is cleared, often to make way for unsustainable agricultural practices. Such destruction not only exacerbates climate change but pushes precious wildlife, such as orangutans, tigers, rhinoceroses, hornbills and elephants, towards extinction. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said, there are now more MPs in Westminster than there are Sumatran tigers left alive on Earth, which is a sobering and powerful reminder of what is at stake with this issue.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for zoos and aquariums, I am pleased that Chester zoo, one of the world’s leading conservation organisations, has been at the forefront of efforts to champion sustainable palm oil and combat deforestation. The zoo is leading the way in creating the world’s first sustainable palm oil city in Chester, and it has worked with plantation owners in Malaysian Borneo to restore over 200 hectares of rainforest, reconnecting fragmented landscapes and protecting our critical wildlife corridors.

Chester zoo’s real and practical experience makes it an invaluable voice on this issue, so it is no surprise that DEFRA officials have previously visited the zoo to consult its experts and even filmed content for what was intended to be the public launch of the regulations. That launch was postponed due to the general election, but the fact that it was planned proves that the due diligence regulation is sitting on a desk somewhere, waiting to be published.

The delay in publication and implementation risks sending entirely the wrong message to businesses seeking certainty, to our international partners and to the public, who rightly expect us to lead on this issue. Chester zoo, alongside other organisations, is calling not for endless revisions of proposals but for the Government to introduce their version of the regulations without further delay.

Just last week, the EU proposed adapting its deforestation regulations to streamline their implementation. In my view, that shows that the UK Government should move faster on implementing their regulations to create certainty on this issue. A practical, balanced approach would be for the Government to conduct a formal review 12 months after implementation, which would allow us to address any operational challenges and assess the compatibility of the regulations with the EU’s deforestation regulations.

This is a moment when we can turn our commitments into reality. Introducing the regulations now would honour the spirit of the Environment Act, provide businesses with much needed clarity, and show that the United Kingdom remains determined to protect the world’s precious forests and wildlife. I urge the Minister to act swiftly and to ensure that trusted voices such as Chester zoo and the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums—the membership body for zoos—are included in any future reviews, so that the regulations are grounded in real conservation and operational experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I am afraid I have absolutely no idea; I will have to write to my hon. Friend. That is genuinely not my area.

We welcome the positive conclusions to the COP in Rome. The key outcome is the launch of the Cali fund, which will drive benefit sharing from the use of DSI—digital sequence information—on genetic resources, allowing companies using this information to direct funds towards indigenous people and local communities who safeguard biodiversity. At the biodiversity COP, for the first time we created the process by which IPLCs now have a seat at the table, which is very important.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) mentioned the UK-Indonesia joint energy transition. As I have said, we will continue to work with key partners, including Indonesia and China, on the stocktake that supports the objective of halting and reversing forest loss by 2030. Future ICF is subject to business planning this year and to the spending review from next year. I am meeting the Minister for International Development this afternoon to discuss our approach on that; this is all work that is happening at the moment.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a particularly important region, but it has received less attention and less climate finance than the Amazon and south-east Asia. We are committed to working with others to secure the next phase of support, which will be announced at COP30, for the forests, people and biodiversity of the Congo basin countries. That will sit alongside the pledge for IPLCs’ land tenure. We know that communities are better able to protect ecosystems when their land rights are secure, and that areas managed by IPLCs are better protected than any other areas. The Foreign Secretary has already announced that the UK will lead on this IPLC land tenure pledge.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister be covering the regulations on due diligence and when they will be published?

[Mary Creagh]

I am coming to that. Legislation complements the measures I have described. The UK timber regs aim to eliminate demand for illegally harvested timber, and the EU’s timber regulation continues to apply, unamended, in Northern Ireland. Both regs require operators that place timber on the market to implement due diligence and review their supply chains, and a recent review of the UK timber regulations demonstrated that they have led to a reduction of illegal timber in UK supply chains.

Over the past 12 years, our delivery partner, the Office for Product Safety and Standards—which, again, is part of the Department for Business and Trade, so not my area—has reviewed the due diligence systems of more than 600 businesses and issued 100 warning letters and 100 notices of remedial action. Recent notable enforcement by OPSS includes the prosecution of luxury yacht maker Sunseeker International, which received a fine of £360,000 plus prosecution costs in relation to illegal imports of timber from Myanmar and Africa.

At home, the Government must also abide by the rules we have made. The Government’s timber procurement policy requires all Government procurers and suppliers to prove the legality and sustainability of timber. We will only accept sustainable timber, and we have a wider approach to encouraging legal and sustainable forestry domestically and internationally. We are currently reviewing the timber procurement policy, with the aim of securing better recognition of British certification schemes such as Grown in Britain and FLEGT—forest law enforcement governance and trade—licensed timber.

We are at a critical moment for forests, and the international community must go further and faster to deliver our ambition. We need to tackle nature loss and enhance planetary stewardship. We are working to unlock more finance for nature, promote deforestation-free agriculture and reform global supply chains. Supporting indigenous rights and access to finance are also vital, and require targeted efforts across all tropical forest basins.

COP30 in Brazil, home to the world’s largest rainforest, will be a pivotal moment. We are working closely with Brazil and other partners to ensure that forests and nature take centre stage. We are partnering with Guyana as co-chairs of the forest and climate leaders’ partnership to build a valuable forum for driving wider ambition.

Agricultural expansion, particularly for a few key commodities, is the primary driver of illegal deforestation worldwide. As colleagues have said, the Environment Act made provision for the Government to bring forward legislation to exclude commodities. We recognise the urgency of the task to ensure that UK consumption of those commodities—

Environmental Protection

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am very proud that Beatson Clark manufactures glass right in the heart of my constituency and has done so for 270 years; it employs 200 people directly and a further 2,000 in the supply chain. Glass can be recycled almost infinitely. Currently, almost 74% of glass is recycled, and 80% of that comes from kerbside collections. I recently met representatives of Beaston Clark and British Glass, and they all expressed grave concerns about the impact of this Government’s current policies on the glass sector. DEFRA’s latest figures show that the number of glass containers placed on the market in 2024 was 23% lower than earlier estimates.

With increased pressure from imported glass, the outlook for UK manufacturers is indeed grim. UK glass manufacturers are already under severe pressure. The failure to introduce tariffs on imported glass, predominantly from Turkey, has left the industry facing punishing competition from overseas producers, who have significantly lower energy costs and no carbon charges. Although the move towards a circular economy as part of environmental improvements is laudable, it will ultimately be futile if the outcome is dependent on foreign imports, with no environmental impact mitigations in place. Can the Minister confirm whether imported glass will face the same EPR, and who will be liable to pay it?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend raised this issue with me prior to the debate. I have checked with my officials, and I am happy to confirm that the person who places the product—regardless of whether it is made in the UK or purchased from abroad—on the market will be responsible for paying the EPR fees on glass bottles.

[Sarah Champion]

I rise happier than when I sat down. I thank the Minister for clarifying that.

The sector has legitimate concerns that the DRS will lead to poor environmental outcomes, with less recycled glass going back for remelt, as it will likely be crushed in the process, thus rendering it unsuitable for its purpose. The DRS could also cause storage and safety issues for both consumers and retailers, especially smaller shops. The Republic of Ireland did not include glass in its scheme. It is important to point out that the DRS is not a reuse scheme; it is a collection scheme. Many people reminisce about the UK’s old deposit scheme, but that was a deposit refill scheme, which is completely different from the proposed DRS.

Wales has achieved a 90% glass collection rate from kerbside collections without the need for DRS, and is ranked second in the world for recycling. Following the Welsh Government’s recent announcement that they will withdraw from the four-nations DRS and re-examine its scope, it seems to me and many others that the scheme will be ineffective across the UK. Will the Minister tell us what consideration has been given to the Welsh blueprint for collection, which would be the simplest way to improve recycling rates? Given that local authorities receive money from the extended producer responsibility, it is a shame that the Government are not encouraging them to use it to improve collection quality.

The glass sector supports the principle behind the extended producer responsibility, but it sees the excessively high EPR fees on glass packaging as punishment for speaking out. The arrangement in Germany is often cited, including by DEFRA, as a good example of an EPR scheme, yet its glass fee is more than 10 times lower than the UK’s, at €28 per tonne. According to the indicative figures recently announced by DEFRA, the fee will be £240 per tonne in the UK.

In my discussions with the Minister last Monday, she confirmed that the final EPR figures were unlikely to be finalised until June. How is a business meant to budget on that basis? I urge her to take a serious look at the indicative figures to see if they can be reduced dramatically; otherwise, we will lose the most recyclable sector. Currently, per unit, glass is facing significantly higher fees than less recyclable, less circular materials. That goes against everything that other Government policies are trying to achieve, and I ask the Minister if they are really confident that the EPR policy and other waste policies will lead to more recyclable packaging in the UK.

Further, the delay to the DRS means that there is a two-and-a-half-year period when glass beverage containers will be paying EPR fees while competing beverage containers will not, due to being in the DRS. Put bluntly, this Government are driving businesses towards less recyclable packaging such as plastic in those two and a half years. It was never intended that EPR would be in place before the DRS, and this leaves glass at a huge competitive disadvantage in the beverage market, which makes up 80% of the glass market. Given the history and the uncertainty that still exists around the DRS, it is vital that all materials pay EPR fees until the DRS is fully functional, to create a level playing field for all beverage packaging. There is a backstop for 2028, but can I ask the Minister to clarify whether the backstop fees will be backdated to April this year when EPR launches?